House Resolution 1066

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

House Resolution 1066
Sunday, 01 15, 2006

The intent and purpose of a congressional investigation is to ventilate and thoroughly discuss an issue, so that pertinent legislative measures, whether remedial or newly introduced, could be crafted meticulously and without yawning loopholes in regard to such issue. But a devilishly crafty lawyer appears to be using it in aid of his practice of his profession. At least, that is how it appears to me after I read elsewhere that the filing of House Resolution 1066 on Dec. 16, 2005 was instigated by a lawyer who was not successful before the Supreme Court (SC) and in the Sandiganbayan over the same issue subject of the resolution.

The resolution is supposed to resurrect in Congress an already settled issue: the validity of a compromise agreement (CA) entered into by the late businessman Potenciano Ilusorio with the government over the 5,400 shares in Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corp. (POTC), which were previously ceded by Marcos crony Jose Campos to the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). Under the CA, the government ceded to Ilusorio 673 of these shares, to avoid a costly, protracted and unnecessary litigation. The CA was approved by the PCGG, endorsed by the Office of the Solicitor General, approved by the Office of the President, and its validity sustained twice by the Sandiganbayan and, later, by the SC. So, how’s that for a system of check-and-countercheck, review-and-validate?

And why should an issue already settled by the SC, the country’s final arbiter, with the Entry of Judgment issued on Dec. 14, 2005, be again rehashed, recycled and introduced as the subject of a congressional probe?

The resolution alleges that the CA “should be nullified because its terms are contrary to law and are grossly disadvantageous to the government.” Also, the CA is alleged to be “tainted as well by lack of supporting documents and some questionable deals between the parties involved in the crafting of the CA.” The last cited reason is a euphemism for what the putative source of the resolution in a press release described, with the bitterness of a sore loser, as “large-scale bribery.”

By all means, the resolution should be heard and the legislative investigation conducted forthwith, to put to rest the issue of validity of the CA. And let us see how the lawyer will support his allegations, hopefully clothing his verbiage with some semblance of a civil tongue.

* * *

Iloilo Rep. Rolex Suplico is bearing the full brunt of the paid advertisements and tri-media releases of a lawyer against whom the Department of Justice has filed estafa charges for running away with his partners’ shares in attorney’s fees. Just the other day, the screaming headline of a tabloid pictured this very decent opposition lawmaker as if he was the devil incarnate.

Suplico, very mild-mannered in every conduct known to man, even when he rails against the foibles and excesses of the Arroyo administration, is very much saddened over the attacks of his quondam partner in a law firm before he became a congressman. What is worse, the lawyer is hell-bent (or storming the gates of heaven, depending on the way you look at it) in raking up issues against Suplico. The last I looked, I noticed that all those issues raised against Suplico have already been resolved in his favor by the Ombudsman and the House of Representatives.

The lawyer is playing dirty pool, as his Yale-educated mentor might have expressed it. All rules of decency and fair-play have been breached here. What’s more, Suplico’s detractor is using to the hilt his vast ill-gotten resources.

Suplico has every reason to believe that the bad blood between him and his detractor can be traced, among other sad circumstances, to the CA involving Ilusorio, for whom they both served as counsel. But even then, that should not be a reason for any lawyer worth his salt to play dirty against a brethren in the profession.

Hindsight, they say, always has a 20/20 vision. Suplico should have warned himself during those halcyon days with the lawyer: “When you sup with the devil, use a long spoon.” Corollarily, when you play pool with the devil, look into his eyes and make sure he doesn’t hand you a crooked cue.

* * *

Methinks there should be a strict implementation of the rule against lawyers involved in conflict-of-interest situations. The rules of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are clear enough: the supreme penalty of disbarment in such cases. So, how come that the lawyer who represented conflicting interests over the 673 shares of Ilusorio in POTC — now the subject of House Resolution 1066 — received what could only be tantamount to a mere slap on the wrist? He was slapped with a penalty of mere three months’ suspension by the SC — very much far different from the penalty of three years’ suspension recommended by the Investigating Bar Discipline Commissioner. Even the IBP Board of Governors was more lenient: it exonerated the lawyer. If the Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions of the IBP were to be followed, the lawyer should already be disbarred.

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2006